p3t3r wrote: The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread. The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc. In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices. IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh. So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home. The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home. Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees. However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc. There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access. Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial. If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc. The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client. If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion. A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased. Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property. Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy. Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated. EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law. Discuss.

Just to put things in a different perspective. I could not have any complaints with ATOS. I was at the near recovery point after an injury and they did have the courtesy of having a proper Doctor to examine under the new DWP rules. He did his job in a very courteous manner and I did all the required tests and one extra (blood pressure) which I mentioned on my form. I passed with zero points (as expected). If they did better tests (nerve conduction studies) they could have upped the points total a bit. So I was pronounced fit for work (=JSA) within three months. The tests do not cover head injuries which are one of the hidden injuries, but no matter as this means on the ATOS pass I do not have put Disability on a Job Application form. Then there was the matter of negotiating my reduced capacities with the Job Centre to still qualify for JSA. Doctor would not sign a "Fit for Work" certificate though. It does not mean I do not have empathy with people who think they have had a raw deal. I got all the pertinent information down on the form (I think this is rather important). In practical terms, there is a bit of problem trying to explain away the gap through illness on Application Forms. This requires a bit of creative writing. And in the final guess it is DWP who make the decision from the information they have got, so make sure they have it all written out clearly. I saw it all coming and I am glad I did not make an appeal, so it is not the only route to follow. I feel much better psychologically not putting Disability down on job forms. I won't be working machinery though. My reduced capacities would not allow this. Or humping pallets around. There is a snag with the WP and their mandates though. They are a bit punitive and not helpful. Still get relapses, but it is a hidden injury, so how can anybody tell? So in case somebody is the same position, take one thing at a time. But then I am feeling optimistic. There is a bit of a problem though. I do know not how I would pass a medical if I do get a job. I think the standard tests will show up an anomaly. So I can't really mention it. It has happened before.